Not to diminish the plight of the Crimean Tartars, but the Tartars aren't considered ethnic Ukrainians, and prior to 1954, Crimea was never considered to be a part of Ukraine. Also, historically, prior to Crimean being annexed by the Russian Empire in 1783, the Ukrainians and the Crimean Tartars were generally enemies. The Tartars, both as the Khanate of Crimea and under the Ottoman Empire ran an extensive slave trade by raiding Ukraine and other neighboring regions to capture slaves which were then exported all over. Obviously, it's not fair to judge a people by the sins of their ancestors, especially concerning events that happened three centuries ago, but the point I'm trying to make is that the ethnic make-up and history of Crimea is of almost no legitimate relevance when it comes to debating what Crimea's future should be in relation to Ukraine. The persecution of the Crimean Tartars all took place prior to Crimea becoming part of Ukraine, or in other words, for the entire history of Crimea being under Ukrainian rule, the population of Crimea has been majority ethnic Russians, and thus it's disingenuous to use the historical persecution of the Crimean Tartars as an argument either for or against Kiev's future authority over Crimea. The debate should focus entirely on the will of the people living there now, the will of the displaced Tartars, the rights Crimea should have had, if any, when the Soviet Union collapsed, and on the legitimacy and wisdom of the tranfer of Crimea from USSR to Ukraine SSR in 1954.

They're not really "natives" of the region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

Native is such a BS word anyways.

No, it's really not. That's like saying "tall" is a "BS word" because most people are shorter than 2 meters. They're "native" if there were there before anyone else. They're certainly more native than the Russians.

Beowoolfie:Stalin exiled the Crimean Tatars from Crimea permanently as punishment for being Nazi supporters during WWII.

Actually, that's a story that Stalin made up (or at least, grossly exaggerated -- there were Nazi collaborators in every country the Germans invaded) to ensure the hostility of the remaining/imported population of Crimea and to justify the deportation and genocide.

But hey, if it helps you remain detached from an authentic emotional response to reality, you go with that story.

czetie:Beowoolfie: Stalin exiled the Crimean Tatars from Crimea permanently as punishment for being Nazi supporters during WWII.

Actually, that's a story that Stalin made up (or at least, grossly exaggerated -- there were Nazi collaborators in every country the Germans invaded) to ensure the hostility of the remaining/imported population of Crimea and to justify the deportation and genocide.

But hey, if it helps you remain detached from an authentic emotional response to reality, you go with that story.

This. Stalin wasn't exactly known for the accuracy of statements he made about people who pissed him off.

They're not really "natives" of the region. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Empire

Native is such a BS word anyways.

While I would normally be all about your semantic argument, any more than 500 years of ancestry and you should be able to call yourself "native." The Mongols first showed up in the region nearly 800 years ago and the Tatars have been there ever since.

czetie:Well there might be some ethnic cleansing of the native Tartars again in Crimea if Russia sticks around

FTF those unfamiliar with 20th century Russian history.

(Short version: the reason Crimea has a large Russian-speaking population in the first place is because Stalin deported 200,000 Crimeans in 1944 -- half of them died in the first year -- and gave their jobs and properties to imported Russians.)

Kind of like how Americans and Canadians seized the property of ethnic Japanese American/Canadian citizens and forcibly placed them all into internment camps during WWII?Yeah, stfu. Goddamn hypocrites.